Why Britain Needs A New Non-Eurocentric Anti-War Movement

John Rees: Unmasking the Anti-Americanism of a British “Revolutionary Socialist”

One would be entirely forgiven for not being familiar with British left-wing fringe politics and understandably never have heard of a certain Mr. John Rees, a self-anointed “Revolutionary Socialist”, academic and importantly a co-founder of the British anti-war movement, “Stop-the-War Coalition” (StWC). There is every noble reason to be blissfully ignorant of him but unfortunately circumstance compels us to mildly scratch the surface of his posturing as a professed anti-imperialist. The Coalition he co-founded original purpose was to oppose United States and British wars on the Arab and the Muslim world during the War on Terror. This Coalition took the lead in organising anti-war demonstrations over the last two decades and recently is central to organising the anti-genocide demonstrations in support of Palestinians in Gaza. Unfortunately, the latter demonstrations have proven to be completely ineffective in terms of influencing government policy but admittedly they have allowed hundreds of the thousands of people in Britain to vent their disapproval of the Gaza genocide. In the following I highlight three pillars of posturing by Rees and his “Revolutionary Socialist” ilk which exemplifies the utter poverty of British anti-imperialism in the hope a consequential anti-war organisation eventually emerges to effectively challenge American-British warmongering. 

Firstly, central to British alleged anti-imperialism, as exemplified by Rees, is a simple anti-Americanism rooted in historical illiteracy and eurocentrism. Whereas most of the world would rightly denounce the Americans for their imperialism, for a good proportion of Britons, whether left-wing or right-wing, it is denounced for not supporting the British establishment and its military. For example, Rees is right to argue that the so-called “special relationship” between Britain and the United States is “little understood” but totally wrong to say that “the US had been a reluctant – and late-arriving – ally in the two world wars of the 20th century.” This comment is not only ahistoricism, but also plain British propaganda. The fact is Britain and the United States were not close allies before World War One or before World War Two. Indeed, before the latter war, the relationship had been strained because Britain had defaulted on its World War One debts after the United States had financially and militarily bailed out them out in that war.

Continue reading

Is Great Britain now an Anti-Imperialist country?

By all honest accounts the British establishment has visited war, carnage, slavery, genocide, terrorism, imperialism, colonialism, impoverishment, starvation and concentration camps on mankind over the last four hundred years. In most cases, especially in the earlier period, such grisly adventurism was executed under the pretext of civilising the native, that is, the aboriginal peoples of the earth. This unsolicited global carnage made England and Great Britain a rich country. The wondrous booty of the establishment’s maritime entrepreneurialism trickled down to the cheering populace and they tugged their forelocks in appreciation and in reciprocation the multitude conferred legitimacy on their wise leaders. The populace migrated to the establishment’s new foreign possessions which in itself eased economic tensions on the home front – by many migrating abroad, there were less challenges to the order of things on the home front.

It is difficult to imagine Albion would have reached such stupendous levels of effortless affluence without resort to such single-minded blood-lust inflicted on the aboriginal peoples of the earth, which herein was the very foundation of its Empire. As Winston Churchill argued in a cabinet meeting in January 1914:

“we are not a young people with an innocent record and a Continue reading

Why John Bull wants to invade and pillage your Nation.

In the first decade of this century, amidst the flames of the “War on Terror” which had hitherto taken in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez made a private visit to London to meet Ken Livingstone, the mayor. Two days earlier British Prime Minister, Tony Blair had lectured and rebuked Chavez and Evo Morales, Bolivian President on the need to use the resources of his oil rich country ‘responsibly’.

According to the Guardian, Blair “called on the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, and his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, to show some responsibility in the use of their energy resources.”

Responsibility is the act of being responsible and the Oxford English Dictionary defines “responsible” as “having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone.”[i] On the other hand, what Blair actually meant by “responsibility” was not qualified or spelt out. If by chiding Chavez and Morales, Blair is arguing that the two South American leaders are using their respective countries wealth incorrectly, inappropriately and unwisely, what exactly was Blair’s prognosis? Continue reading

Stop the War Coalition – Droning into Irrelevance?

Stop the War Coalition (StW), Britain’s main anti-war movement held an anniversary commemoration on the 9th February 2013.  It’s been more or less 10 years since over a million people marched in the UK’s capital to demonstrate against the UnitedStates-UnitedKingdom build up to the war and invasion on Iraq.

One must commend and congratulate the organisers for possessing the foresight to hold this event. They began promoting it in late October/early November 2012. Their foresight was rewarded with a fantastic attendance of many hundreds and I presume this turnout inspired everyone who attended. The number of attendees solidly confirmed that there continues to be a strong impulse in the UK against mindless adventurism, imperialist war and international brigandry.

However, the main problem with the event was the Continue reading

Obama-bashing and the British urge to intervene in Libya

The current war on Libya largely led by Britain and France once again highlights the shortcomings of the British anti-war movement.

In the run up to the war on Iraqin 2003 and many years afterwards, many of the leading individuals within this movement circumvented the fact that Britainwas invading Iraqfor its own interests. Instead they mischievously popularised the notion that Tony Blair was beholden to George W. Bush. The latter, they strongly claimed, was dragging the former along into this illegal venture.[1]

Blair, they inveterately argued, was not a co-partner, co-conspirator and co-leader in this military enterprise but a mere “poodle”.[2] The poor soul had his innate and natural sincerity taken advantage of by big bad George W. Bush; he was seduced by the power of a photo-op on the Oval office’s green lawn and at times he was even “stabbed in the back” for Continue reading